This Sunday’s 60 Minutes will feature a gay soldier who told, and told, and told.

[Sgt. Darren] Manzella, a medic who served in Iraq for a year, currently serves as medical liaison for the 1st Cavalry Division stationed in Kuwait, where he says he is “out” to his entire chain of command, including a three-star general.

And no one heard.

He then says his commander reported him, as he was obliged to do, and then “I had to go see my battalion commander, who read me my rights,” he says. He turned over pictures of him and his boyfriend, including video of a passionate kiss, to aid the investigation. But to his surprise, “I was told to go back to work. There was no evidence of homosexuality,” says Manzella. “‘You’re not gay,'” he says his superiors told him. This response confused him and, he says, the closest a superior officer came to addressing his sexuality was to say “I don’t care if you’re gay or not.”

Although many of the Republican candidates for President think that servicemen and women are too conservative to bond with a gay fighter, I suspect that when it comes to fellow warriors, our soldiers are more interested in conserving their skin than conserving their prejudices.

What I also think is interesting, is the 3rd part of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The full policy is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue”. In other words if you suspect a soldier is gay, you can’t follow him around gathering evidence. So theoretically, hiding it is supposed to be your best and only option.

“U.S. Army Maj. Daniel Davis, speaking to Stahl out of uniform to emphasize that he does not speak for the U.S. military, says don’t ask, don’t tell is necessary to achieve cohesion among soldiers, especially those in combat. Most service members are conservative, he says, and won’t readily accept gays. ‘If you have a moral or religious issue, you cannot order me to [bond] with that [gay] person,’ says Davis, a specialist in battlefield tactics. ‘Our purpose in the military is not social engineeringâ€¦.Itâ€™s about fighting and winning the nation’s wars.'”

…with this from testimony by Kenneth C. Royall, Secretary of the Army, before the Presidentâ€™s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity In The Armed Forces on March 28, 1949:

“At the outset I want to make it clear that in my opinion the policies which should be applied to the use of all Army personnel, regardless of race, are those policies which best promote a sound national defense. Our basic mission is to win battles and to establish an organization capable of winning battles.

Specifically the Army is not an instrument for social evolution. It is not the Armyâ€™s job either to favor or to impede the social doctrines, no matter how progressive they may be â€“ it is not for us to lead or to lag behind the civilian procession except to the extent that the national defense is affectedâ€¦

Another â€“ and an important â€“ factor to be considered on the question of segregation is the morale of the troops as a whole â€“ their satisfaction with Army life, and the spirit with which they perform Army tasks. In war, when the chips are down, this morale factor may well be the difference between victory and defeat.

We must remember that soldiers are not mere bodies that can be moved and handled as trucks and guns. They are individuals who came from civilian life and often return thereto. They are subject to all the emotions, prejudices, ideals, ambitions and inhibitions that encumber our civil population throughout the country.

Solders live and work closely together. They are not only on the same drill field also in the same living and eating quarters. From the standpoint both of morale and of efficiency it is important in peace and in war that the barracks and the unit areas be so attractive to them that they will devote not only their duty time but a reasonable part of their optional time at the post â€“ that they will not be watching the clock for a chance to get away.

In war it is even more important that they have confidence both in their leaders and in the men that are to fight by their sides. Effective comradeship in battle calls for a warm and close personal relationship within a unitâ€¦

In this connection we must remember that a large part of the volunteers in the Army are Southerners â€“ usually a larger proportion than from any other part of the country. Whether properly or not, it is a well known fact that close personal association with Negroes is distasteful to large percentage of Southern whites.

A total abandonment of â€“ or a substantial and sudden change in â€“ the Armyâ€™s partial segregation policy would in my opinion adversely affect enlistments and reenlistments not only in the South but in many other parts of the country, probably making peacetime selective service necessary. And a change in our policy would adversely affect the morale of many Southern soldiers and other soldiers now servingâ€¦

[I]n my opinion â€“ and I believe in the opinion of a great majority of the experienced Army men and officers â€“ it would be most difficult â€“ and unwise from the standpoint of national defense â€“ to require any substantial proportion of white soldiers â€“ whether from the South or from other sections of the country â€“ to serve under Negro officers or particularly under Negro non-commissioned officers.”

â€˜If you have a moral or religious issue, you cannot order me to [bond] with that [gay] person,â€™ says Davis, a specialist in battlefield tactics. â€˜Our purpose in the military is not social engineeringâ€¦.Itâ€™s about fighting and winning the nationâ€™s wars.â€™â€

in other words…”If you have a moral or religious issue, you cannot refuse to [bond] with that [gay] person…our purpose in the military is not about keeping the status quo…it’s about fighting and winning the nation’s wars.”

Seems to me, a former Marine brat, that part of the military is taking orders, and that the servicepeople don’t get to pick which wars they fight in, which combat zones they are in, who the enemy is, what they eat, or when they get to leave, —but they do get to dictate who they will work with? That it’s reasonable to expect someone to fight and die for whatever reasons the Commander in Chief chooses, but it’s unreasonable to expect them to work with someone gay? You can order someone to march until they’re in crippling pain, but you can’t order them to be a professional and work with someone different? Huh? What logic is that?

I loved the story and thought that the pics of him and his boyfriend were beautiful. I loved seeing them together. I also like his comment that the soldiers themselves, the people of the “Will & Grace” generation, don’t care one whit if someone is gay.

It’s the leadership that has fallen behind.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.